ADAMS, Thomas K. The New Mercenaries and the Privatization of Conflict. Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly. Summer 1999, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 103-16: TEXT

INTRODUCTOTY REMARKS: A certain amount of near-hysteria has been generated in the past few years by the issue of privatized military elements...loosely characterized as mercenaries. The United Nations and some African states (some of whom hire mercenaries) have been especially vociferous in this regard. Nevertheless, the realities of the 21st century will make it inevitable that so-called mercenaries will play a greater role than in the past.

 

GRANT, Bruce D. U.S. Military Expertise for Sale: Private Military Consultants as a Tool of Foreign Policy. U.S. National Defense University. 17th Annual Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategy Essay Competition entry, 1998. Colonel Grant, USA, shared third place in the 1998 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategy Essay Competition with this entry, written while attending the U.S. Army War College: TEXT

CONCLUSIONS: (...) The United States should not employ private military consultants as a tool of foreign policy to train other nations' armies to fight wars. Private military assistance provided under contract between the firm and the foreign nation is not subject to congressional oversight or public scrutiny, because the contents of the contract are considered proprietary information. Thus, privatization is a way of going around Congress and not telling the public. Foreign policy is made by default to private military consultants motivated by bottom-line profits. Current policy allows and even encourages this new type of outsourcing, as shown in Croatia, in Bosnia, and soon in Angola. It has become an attractive, no-risk alternative in an era of shrinking resources. (...)

 

ISENBERG, David. Have Lawyer, Accountant, and Guns, Will Fight: The New Post-Cold War Mercenaries. Paper the Getting Guns off the Streets of the Global Village panel of the International Studies Association Convention, Washington, D.C, February 19, 1999:. TEXT

CONCLUSIONS: (...) Given the fact that conflict will continue and states will choose not to undertake humanitarian interventions PMCs have a valid role to play in the future. For generations we have seen the private sector make money off war. The time has come to let it make a profit out of peace.

 

ISENBERG, David.Soldiers of Fortune Ltd.: A Profile of Today's Private Sector Corporate Mercenary Firms. Center for Defense Information Monograph. Washington, D.C., November 1997: TEXT

INTRODUICTION: (...) In a world where there are tens of millions of soldiers serving in regular military forces around the world, why is the subject of mercenaries important? Simply put, at a time when there is a trend toward military downsizing worldwide, coupled with continuing and perhaps more virulent conflicts in developing nations, a global trend towards privatization, and the reluctance of developed states to intervene in troubled areas, there will be a continuing and possibly increased demand for the services of trained military personnel capable of both teaching combat skills and conducting combat. (...)

 

NATHAN, Laurie. "Trust Me I'm a Mercenary" The Lethal Danger of Mercenaries in Africa. Seminar on the `Privatisation' of Peacekeeping Institute for Security Studies, Centre for Conflict Resolution, University of Cape Town, South Africa, February 20, 1997: TEXT

INTRODUCTION: I want to argue that mercenaries are a generic problem of great proportions, regardless of the specific conduct or misconduct of Executive Outcomes. By mercenaries I mean soldiers who are hired by a foreign government or rebel movement to contribute to the prosecution of armed conflict - whether directly by engaging in hostilities, or indirectly through training, logistics, intelligence or advisory services - and who do so outside the authority of the government and defence force of their own country.

 

• SHEARER, David. Private Armies and Military Interventions. International Institute for Strategic Studies. Adelphi Paper no. 316, April 30, 1998. [No available as a free download and no abstract provided by the journal; thus only listed for reference purposes]: Journal page I Amazon listing

SHEPPARD, Simon. Foot Soldiers and the New World Order: The Rise of the Corporate Military. New Left Review, no. 228, March-April. 1998, pp. 128-138: TEXT

CLOSING REMARKS: (...) The growing number, expertise and legitimacy of professional military firms are an unexpected consequence of the post Cold War 'peace dividend'. The burgeoning opportunities provided by the 'New World Order' may eventuate in the mercenary contract being recognized as the standard means of warfare in the twenty-first century. (...)

 

WRINGLEY, Christopher (CAAT) . The privatisation of violence. New mercenaries and the state. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) London, March 1999: TEXT

CLOSING REMARKS : CAAT welcomes the recommendation of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government should publish "a Green Paper outlining legislative options for the control of private military companies which operate out of the United Kingdom, its dependencies and the British islands". The Committee, however, sets a target date of 18 months for this paper, which seems rather long.

 

VAN BERGEN THIRION (Sout African Navy, Captain). The Privatisation of Security: A Blessing or a Menace. South African Defence College, Research Papers, 1998: TEXT

ABSTRACT: The growth of private security in a variety of forms, locally as well as internationally, has become prominent in recent years. As the occurrence takes on different guises, the impression is gained that the phenomenon ranges from the traditional private security company employed to safeguard commercial ventures, to the wider ‘privatisation of security’ of the state including the ‘privatisation of peace-keeping’. The bottom line with respect to the privatisation of security, internally and externally, is that there is a need and sufficient scope for the use of such organisations. The element lacking at present, and being exacerbated by the growth in weak states in the post Cold War years, is a common approach to privatised security. Furthermore, the lack of international peace-keeping involvement in Africa in particular, due to foreign and defence policy changes of the powerful nations, opens the way for private companies, but without the required co-ordination between them, the UN, and regional organisations. The need therefore is to regulate the industry to enable co-operation and impose control.

 

ZAMPARELLI, Steven J. (United States Air Force, Colonel) Contractors on the Battlefield: What Have We Signed Up For. Air Force Journal of Logistics, vol. 23, no. 3, 1999, 11-19: PDF

CONCLUSIONS: The Department of Defense is gambling future military victory on contractors’ performing operational functions on the battlefield. Contractors are becoming increasingly responsible for in-theater taskings previously accomplished by military personnel. This has occurred auspiciously due to significant and necessary cuts in force structures and the related need to transition, through outsourcing or privatization, nonoperational functions to the private sector. However, contractor numbers are increasing in theater and on the front lines, and their support is directly related to combat operations (...) .

 

• ZARATE, Juan Carlos. The Emergence of a New Dog of War: Private International Security Companies, International Law, and the New World Disorder. Stanford Journal of International Law. 1998, vol. 34. [The article is no longer available as a free download; no abstract provided by the journal; thus only listed for reference purposes]: Journal page